'Pretty Festoons of Holly Leaves Are Displayed' - The Decoration of Railway Stations Before 1900

In the late nineteenth century most railway employees would find themselves at work over the Christmas period, even on Christmas Day itself. Therefore, it is unsurprising that many felt the need to adorn their places of work so that the spirit of Christmas would remain with them while on duty. The decoration of stations was seemingly a collective effort by station staff, and it was reported by the Reading Mercury in January 1887 that at Sunningdale station on the London and South Western Railway (LSWR) ‘all the men have worked at the decorations during their “off time” under the supervision of the station master.^[1]

This decking out of stations at Christmas allowed travellers to pass a wealth of colour while on their journeys. In 1884 the London and South Western Railway’s (LSWR) staff magazine, the South Western Gazette, reported that the standard of decorations at suburban stations was ‘quite up to the standard of past years’.^[2] The Whitstable Times and Hearne Bay Herald stated in 1881 that the London, Chatham and Dover Railway’s (LCDR) station at Canterbury ‘looked exceedingly pretty’ and that ‘there had been no stint in the quality of decorative material, and it had been put up in a manner that evinced care and taste on the part of the decorators.’^[3] Furthermore, in 1887 the adornments at the LSWR’s Totton, Redbridge and Lyndhurst Road Stations were described by the Hampshire Advertiser as being ‘very effective, reflecting credit on those who carried out the work.’^[4]

Decorations were usually a mix of local plants, particularly evergreens, with other items added. In 1888 the booking office and waiting room at Purley on the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LBSCR) was decorated ‘effectively and prettily’ with holly and ivy.^[5] Furthermore, the copious adornments at the LSWR’s Sunningdale Station in 1886 were described in full, as follows:

‘The evergreens, relieved by numerous flags, and mottoes have a very pretty effect. The pillars are entwined with Turkey red, above which is a diamond shaped wreath, with Chrysanthemums, yellow, white and pink bronze at each point. The booking office is adorned with great taste, and a number of pretty festoons of holly leaves are displayed.’^[6]

Additionally, the Gazetterecorded that the parcels office staff at Richmond station in 1887 had…:

“…vied with their parcel brethren at other stations in the way in which they have recognised this season of the year by wreathing and other decorations on the walls and around the windows of their office; the result has been very successful…a considerable quantity of evergreen has been expended in all decorations of this Richmond parcels office. We hear it is as well as any in the vicinity.’^[7]

Staff at Norbiton in 1884 and Camberley in 1885^[8] did things a little differently; lighting their booking offices and waiting rooms with Chinese lanterns. The Gazette recorded how at Norbiton ‘The effect at night is exceedingly pretty, and reflects great credit upon the designers.’^[9]

It is unknown when stations were decorated by their staff. However, only one article I have found reports a station's adornments before 25 December, suggesting that most stations were decked out shortly before Christmas Day.^[10] As for when they were taken down, this is again a bit of a mystery. Yet, clearly some stations were a bit lazy in doing so. At Saxmundham Station on the Great Eastern Railway in 1875, decorations were noted to be still up in the waiting room at a staff supper on the 12 January.^[11]

I have always felt that the Victorian railway community’s decoration of stations is akin to what many of us do at our own places of work; we decorate to help us remain festive while grafting. Consequently, our festooning of desks and walls follow in a long tradition of work-place festivities.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL MY READERS 

My other Christmas posts are as follows:

"Christmas fare from the provinces" - Euston Station and the Distribution of Festive Goods in the 1840s

"An EXTRA TRAIN will leave Shoreditch" - Trains on Christmas Day before 1900

A Victorian 'Railway' Christmas - Parcels, Pastimes, Profit and Poetry

----

[1] Reading Mercury, Saturday 01 January 1887

[2] The South Western Gazette, January 1888, p.8

[3] Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald, Saturday 01 January 1881

[4] Hampshire Advertiser, Saturday 31 December 1887

[5] Surrey Mirror, Saturday 22 December 1888

[6] Reading Mercury, Saturday 01 January 1887

[7] The South Western Gazette, January 1888, p.11

[8] Reading Mercury, Saturday 02 January 1886

[9] The South Western Gazette, January 1884, p.2

[10] Surrey Mirror, Saturday 22 December 1888

[11] The Ipswich Journal, Saturday 16 January 1875

"Whilst Passing over or Standing on Buffers During Shunting" - British Railway Accident Rates in the 1880s

Sadly, railway accidents were common occurrences in the Victorian railway, and both passengers and employees could not fail to be aware of the scale of the loss of life and limb in the period. Indeed, the July 1888 the South Western Gazette, the London and South Western Railway’s staff magazine, published details on all the accidents that occurred on Britain’s Railways between 1880 and 1887. Thus, this gave a useful snapshot of the state of railway safety for both employees and passengers in the period.

The first table that the Gazette presented was a list of those individuals killed or injured in accidents on trains between 1880 and 1887 (above). This showed that over the course of the 1880s that the number of accidents dropped and in 1880 51 individuals had been killed, whereas in 1887 the total was 25. However, the Gazette commented that the 25 passengers who lost their lives in 1887 did so in one accident at Penistone on the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, and had not been for this event ‘some 800 millions of passengers without the loss of a single life.’ More significantly, the number of injuries declined, which is more indicative of changes of railway safety. While in 1880 1,023 individuals had been injured, by 1887 the total was 647.

The decline in train accidents can be attributed to improvements in railway safety. No major safety legislation was introduced in the 1880s, but two technologies were gradually spreading through the British railway network.

The first was the block system of train control.  Originally trains were allowed to proceed along lines only after and interval of time. This meant that if a train got delayed, the one behind would be given permission to proceed after a set duration, which would put both at risk. However, in the 1870s and 1880s this was gradually replaced by block systems. This was where the track was divided up into sections, and a train following another was not allowed to enter the ‘block’ section in front until any preceding train had left it. Most train movements in and out of block sections were controlled by individual signal boxes connected by telegraphs. While the technical details of the block system, which is still in use today, are unimportant, its gradual introduction in this period by railway companies dramatically improved safety.[1]

Secondly, continuous brakes on locomotives and passenger vehicles became more widespread. The principal of continuous brakes was that when the driver applied the brake on the locomotive, the wheels of the coaches did the same. While legislation on this was not in place until 1889, after the Armagh Accident, many companies began to fit three competing brake systems to their rolling stock from the early 1880s. The detail of which systems were adopted by which companies is unimportant. However, two systems used a vacuum maintained by the train, and another, the Westinghouse system, was an air brake.[2] Therefore, this improved the reliability of braking systems generally, as now whole trains could be brought to a halt. Indeed, this explains the drop in injuries, as now in the when a train applied a brake sharply, carriages did not smash into each other as easily.

Despite improvements in accident rates on trains, there was seemingly no improvement in the number of other accidents that occurred elsewhere. The table above shows that between 1885 and 1887 the number of people killed on railways in total increased. The numbers injured decreased, however, this was only because of the decline in injuries to people on trains.

Interestingly, the article also gave the most common causes of injury (left) in 1887. The most number of injuries, 355 in total, were attributed to ‘other accidents during shunting operations, not included in the preceding’ (the preceding being: ‘while moving vehicles by capstans, turntables props &c. during shunting – 187 accidents.’) The second most common form of accident occurred ‘whilst coupling and uncoupling vehicles,’ 232 happening in this manner. Fatalities predominantly occurred in shunting operations. The most number of deaths, 99 in total, were when individuals were ‘working on the permanent way, sidings &c.’ Following this, 93 individuals were killed ‘whilst walking, crossing, or standing on the line on duty.’ Thus, it was people actually working on the line itself that most frequently were killed.

What individuals were doing when they were killed or injured was reflected in the types of employee were involved in accidents the most (right). As expected, those individuals who were involved with coupling together trains were injured the most, and 337 Brakesmen and Goods Guards, 309 Porters and 292 shunters, were so. Furthermore, it is unsurprising that the individuals who were killed the most were platelayers who maintained the line, and 106 died, presumably through being knocked down by a train.

Overall, this small study has revealed that while the railway was an increasingly safe place for those travelling by train, whether they were passengers or railway workers, for those who were actually employed by the railways the risk involved did not diminish. This would challenge any idea that in this period railway work became safer for employees, when only a small proportion benefited from the safety devices that were introduced.

------------------

[1] Farrington, John, ‘Block Working’, in Simmons, Jack and Biddle, Gordon (eds.), The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.34

[2] Weaver, Rodney, ‘Brakes’, Simmons and Biddle (eds.), The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, p.41

All other information from: South Western Gazette, July 1888, p.11

The Values of Victorian Railway Company Staff Magazines

In my last blog post I talked about how the Great Western (GWR) and London and South Western Railway’s (L&SWR) staff magazines’ had different establishing agendas and how this may have reflected different cultures amongst the companies’ clerks who started and wrote them. In this post I will show where the content of the two company’s staff magazines’, the South Western Gazette (SWG) and the Great Western Railway Magazine and Temperance Union Record (GWRM), converged in one important respect. This will reveal that clerks within both companies had very similar, if not identical, perspectives on railway work that were the result of their career prospects.

One of the most important benefits of being a clerk within any Victorian railway company was the unique promotional opportunities. In the case of the L&SWR I have identified that of 70 Traffic Department senior managers appointed between 1850 and 1922, only 3 (4.3%) had started their careers in non-clerical grades (two porters and a ticket inspector). The remaining 67 all had started with the L&SWR as either junior (or apprentice) clerks or senior clerks.[1] Additionally, Goruvish has shown that of 88 Railway Company Chief Executive Managers appointed between 1850 and 1922, only 10% came from ‘Engineering’ departments.[2] The rest came from Administrative (30%) or Traffic Departments (60%). The only failing of this research, for my purposes, is that it doesn’t identify from what positions that CEMs from Traffic Departments came from. However, we can be almost certain that all those Chief Executive Managers from administrative departments were originally clerks. Overall, however, the evidence suggests that clerks could become managers and other employees rarely received such chances.

Therefore, the fact that the majority of senior L&SWR and GWR managers came from the ranks of the clerical staff, means that their employment outlooks were highly likely be aligned with the goals for the company that senior management had. These goals included profit maximisation, loyalty and efficiency. As a result, the clerk edited staff magazines from both companies reflected this informal association.

Firstly, in both magazines criticism of the policies of the companies was prohibited. In the first issue of the SWG the editorial warned potential contributors that they did not 'think it wise' to include articles which were 'tending to a criticism of the South Western Company's policy, or the action of the company's officials.'[3] [italics in original] Subsequently, in August 1881, a contributor named 'Uno' was reminded in print that his unspecified grievances against the management would not be published.[4] While the same sort of explicit statements were not found in the GWRM, in the first issue the editorial stated that the magazine would ‘not meddle with politics, or with subjects leading to excited controversy, for those can be found ad libitum elsewhere.’[5] Thus, while it did’ not explicitly that reporters could not send in criticism of the company, it implied that ‘controversy’ which this form of correspondence would come under, was not welcome. Therefore, by excluding from these magazines’ pages competing narratives of the companies’ performance and management, the alignment of the views of the clerks and senior management is plain to see.

Secondly, both publications prominently featured financial and traffic information within their pages. From the first issue of the SWG in June 1881, up to the January 1886 number, it printed monthly details of the company's revenue, any increases or decreases compared with the corresponding month of the previous year, and the amount of revenue earned per mile of track opened. Furthermore, these statistics were usually to be found in a position of prominence on page one of each edition.[6] Similarly, the GWRM published throughout its first year (and possibly beyond) information on the GWR’s Stock and Share capital and the traffic receipts of the company in the previous month compared with the corresponding month in the previous two years. While not on the first page of the publication, these figures were in a prominent position in the magazine taking up half of a page.[7] Further, both publications published details of their companies’ half-yearly reports and of the proprietors’ meetings. Thus, the inclusion and prominent position of the traffic and financial information betrayed the fact that both editorial teams, like management, saw the success of the company in financial terms and wished to express to the readership of the centrality of profit in company activities.

The last indicator that the clerks identified with the views of management can only be found in the SWG. In June 1882 the Gazette commented on the fact that the salaried (and predominately clerical) staff had been 'left out in the cold' with regard to pay rises, while the waged grades had received increases. Responding to this, the author stated that 'it is another incontestable proof of the vital importance to the staff of good traffic returns...we trust that for the future all will do their utmost to make the line popular so the present prosperity may long continue.' This implied that employees’ wages were dependent on individual productivity and efficient working. Additionally, it held up as an example the self-sacrificing clerical staff, positioning them within the as understanding the importance of the company's financial success to their employment.[8]As such, the article was projecting the views held by the clerical staff and, by default, the management, that profit was the key consideration of company operations. It is unknown whether a similar expression was made in the GWRM (I only have one year’s worth), but hopefully further research will reveal if this was so.

While I still have a lot to do on railway company magazines, from the evidence above I can tentatively say that the clerks of both the L&SWR and GWR expressed views in their publications which were aligned with their respective companies’ managements. However, the degree to which these were held by all the companies’ clerks is unknown and to determine this is also the aim of further research.

--------------------

[1] Data collected from: The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/491 to RAIL 411/497 and RAIL 411/499 to RAIL 411/502

[2] Gourvish, Terence .R., ‘A British Business Elite: The Chief Executive Managers of the Railway Industry, 1850-1922,’ Business History, Vol. XLVII, No.3 (Autumn, 1973), p.305

[3] TNA, ZPER 11/1, South Western Gazette, June 1881, pp.5

[4] TNA, ZPER 11/1, South Western Gazette, August 1881, pp.8

[5] TNA, ZPER 19/2, Great Western Railway Magazine and Temperance Union Record, November 1888, p.1

[6] TNA, ZPER 11/1, South Western Gazette, June 1881, pp.1

[7] TNA, ZPER 19/2, Great Western Railway Magazine and Temperance Union Record, November 1888, p.7

[8] TNA, ZPER 11/1, South Western Gazette, June 1882, pp.2

The Morals of Victorian Railway Company Staff Magazines

Very recently, I have become interested in railway company staff magazines from before 1923. Not only are they an excellent source of information on the late 19^th and early 20^th century railway companies, but they detail the business cultures that existed within them. Naturally, as part of my PhD I have heavily used the London and South Western Railway’s (L&SWR) staff magazine, the South Western Gazette (SWG). This was the first railway company staff magazine and was started in 1881. The second staff magazine to be published came from within the Great Western Railway (GWR) in 1888 and was called the Great Western Magazine and Temperance Union Record (GWM). At the point of establishment the magazines shared two important things in common. Both were established voluntarily by clerks for ‘moral’ reasons, and both had clerks as reporters. Yet, the morality that drove the establishment of these publications was different in each case. Thus, I believe this possibly reflected the fact that amongst the two companies’ clerical staffs, different cultures had evolved up to the 1880s.

The different purpose of the two publications was evidenced by their first editorials. The GWM was established by the GWR’s Temperance Union to bind the union’s branches together. But also, its aim was to reinforce temperance amongst the union’s members. Thus, the first editorial stated that:

‘We anticipate marked results from the Great Western Magazine, not only in animating and linking together the existing branches of the Great Western Temperance Union, but in pressing on men’s minds the special claims which the cause of Temperance has upon railway men for their support an sympathy…'[1]

Contrastingly, the SWG was the result of three clerks working together to support the company’s Widows’ and Orphans’ fund, and as such did not have within its content a stated agenda.[2] Its first editorial stated that the SWG was:

‘Written by South Western men for South Western men, in the pecuniary interests of Widows’ and Orphans’ Fund, it deserves the support of all classes in the service, not on account of any literary merit –it has no pretention in that direction-but because it will assist a most deserving institution.'[3] [Italics in original]

From these statements it is evident that the individuals’ who started these publications had different moral purposes in mind. Subsequently, it potentially indicates differences in collective culture amongst the two companies' clerical staffs. The culture amongst the clerks of the GWR meant that the GWRM focussed on impressing on individuals the need for moral actions. Subsequently, they believed that these moral actions, invariably, would improve your life and lead to a better state of existence. Thus, the onus was on the individual to be moral and improve their own lives, but with guidance. Yet, the L&SWR clerks’ view of morality, as expressed through the Gazette, was one of altruism and of doing good deeds in the common interest. Thus, morality was not just a matter on individual action, although evidently individual morality was important, but collective morality was also necessary for the common good. In some sense, the GWRM was the conservative publication, whereas the Gazette was the socialist one.

To re-affirm my assessment, it is interesting to look at the coverage each publication gave to the other’s central focus. In 1881 the L&SWR employees already had a temperance society. While the Gazette gave it some coverage in its early years, overall they seemingly paid little heed to it compared their coverage of the work of the widows and orphans fund. Indeed, in December 1885 the Deputy Chairman of the L&SWR, Wyndam S. Portal, wrote to the Gazette complaining about the lack articles regarding the company’s temperance union.[4] Conversely, in 1888 a GWR widows’ and orphans’ fund did exist. Yet, it only received a small piece of coverage in early issues,[5] and the activities of the Temperance Union’s branches filled approximately half the publication's pages. Thus, while each publication did concern itself with the other’s central issue, it was not their top priority.

While the origin of this difference in culture would be hard to determine without further study, it is easy to see why they may have become established within the clerical staffs both companies given the nature of clerks’ employment conditions and their lives. By the 1880s clerks in all railway companies were selected by examinations. However, passing these would afford new clerks unique career prospects (up to management), good pay and high job security compared with other railway workers. Yet, what this did was insulate them from the other employees, and their view of what was important in railway work was naturally aligned with those of their managers. Further, once an individual had become a junior or apprentice clerk they would be trained by other clerks and ex-clerks, such as station masters, and would ordinarily socialise with them also (as evidenced by Sam Fay’s Diary).[6]Lastly, once an individual became a clerk on one Railway Company it was incredibly rare for him to move to another. Thus, by the 1880s clerical staffs within companies were isolated groups of employees, where ideas would not circulate far or interact with others from outside.

Subsequently, with clerical employment structures being developed up to the 1860, and having become fully established by the 1880s, it is highly likely that the different purposes of the SWG and the GWM were the result of two different employment cultures that had evolved separately within the two companies’ clerical staffs. Of course, this is open to further investigation, and I realise that I have made some sweeping assumptions, but overall it cannot be denied differences of culture must have existed to some extent. In my next post, I will take a different look at the two magazines to discover what L&SWR and GWR clerks had in common.

-----------------------

[1] TNA, ZPER 19/2, Great Western Railway Magazine and Temperance Union Record, November 1888, p.1

[2] TNA, ZPER 12/9, Southern Railway Magazine, June 1931, pp.202

[3] TNA, ZPER 11/1, South Western Gazette, June 1881, p.5

[4] TNA, ZPER 11/5, South Western Gazette, December 1885, p.3

[5] TNA, ZPER 19/2, Great Western Railway Magazine and Temperance Union Record, December 1888, p.17

[6] Bill Fay Collection, Sam Fay’s Diary 1878-1881

What a clerk said...The editors of the South Western Gazette

I'm currently ploughing my way through writing an article on the early years of the South Western Gazette (SWG). This was a company magazine established by London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) employees in June 1881 and has the unique distinction of being the first railway company magazine in the country. As a source of basic information company magazines excel in comparison with the wearisome 'official' files of railways such as minute books and letters because they give the historian a chance to view the 'human' side of the railways. The pages are filled with stories and tales of a social culture, bounded by the company's organisational borders, that has long since past. For this reason I always wished the SWG had started earlier because the history of the people behind railway operations never really moves beyond very dry statistical studies.

When analysing the SWG or any company magazine it should be kept in mind that they weren't just some benign form of community notice board. Dig a bit deeper and it is clear that the content was influenced by a number of factors. Mike Esbester (University of Reading) in his work on the Great Western Railway Magazine (GWRM), and I in the case of the SWG, have separately found that the background and career histories of editors was a highly important in shaping their publications.

In the case of the GWRM Esbester speculated that because the editor from 1919, Hadley, was working in the General Manager's office and therefore was close to the administrative centre of the company, it was highly likely that he would have had ideals aligned with those of management. These ideals therefore came through in the GWRM's coverage of and role in the GWR's Safety Campaign, as Hadley would have shared conceptions of safety with the management.

In the case of the SWG's early history it is evident that its editors would also have identified with the ideals of the management, even though the publication was essentially independent from them. Firstly two of the founders, Goffe and Dyer, worked in the General Manager's office (which only had one other staff member) placing them at the administrative centre of the company. Secondly the entire editorial and management team were clerks in the Traffic Department, and as has been stated in a previous post all managers in the department had been part clerical staff, creating a promotional and career link between the clerical staff and management. Therefore with these factors in mind it is highly likely that the editors would have shared a view of company operations similar or identical to those of management.

These shared views therefore became manifest in the Gazette's early editions. Firstly while the publication was written 'by South Western men, for South Western men', any competing narratives of company performance were prohibited. In the first issue it was stated that the editor (Dyer) did not 'think it wise' to allow articles which were 'tending to a criticism of the South Western Company's policy, or the action of the company's Officials.' This clearly aligned the Gazette's content with the goals and thought of management, something that was re-enforced by some of its early features. While much of the content focussed on the company's social culture such as smoking concerts, fairs, promotions, long-standing employees and staff funerals, the was significant coverage of the 'business' side of company activities. Therefore early issues carried revenue tables, traffic information and reports of the half-yearly accounts, which was more likely the concern of management and those aspiring to be managers, rather than non-clerical staff such as porters and ticket inspectors.

Overall while essentially the SWG featured news of the L&SWR's social culture in its formative years, it did have a links to the views of management of which glimpses can be seen. Subsequently analysis of company magazines should always look beyond the pages into the background.